State Obligations in the African System

(Nani) Jansen Reventlow, Yakaré-Oulé; Curling, Rosa

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-94848-5_12

Yakaré-Oulé (Nani) Jansen Reventlow⁴ &
Rosa Curling⁵

882 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter discusses how the African Commission and African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights have interpreted state obligations under the African Charter, particularly the due diligence obligation to investigate, prosecute and punish human rights violations. The chapter considers the case law from the last 10 years of both the Commission and the Court. The authors find that while both bodies can, at times, be directive and detailed in how they want the States Parties’ obligations to be interpreted under the Charter, a consistent approach is yet to be developed. The chapter also looks at the approach taken by the African Commission and the African Court in assessing human rights violations under international treaties other than the Charter. The authors find that while both bodies tend to consider legal instruments other than the Charter in their assessments of the merits of human rights claims, their practice in finding violations under other instruments is yet to be developed consistently.

The references have been updated as of submission of the manuscript, in January 2017.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 149.00; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 199.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
Organization of African Unity (OAU), African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (‘Banjul Charter’), 27 June 1981, CAB/LEG/67/3 rev 5, 21 I.L.M. 58 (1982), available at http://www.achpr.org/files/instruments/achpr/banjul_charter.pdf. Accessed 26 Jan 2017.
2.
See African Commission website: http://www.achpr.org/instruments/achpr/history/. Accessed 26 Jan 2017.
3.
See ratification table on African Commission website: http://www.achpr.org/instruments/achpr/ratification/. Accessed 26 Jan 2017.
4.
The African Commission (hereafter quoted as AfCHPR) was established on 2 Nov 1987. It has three main functions: (1) the protection of human and peoples’ rights; (2) the promotion of human and peoples’ rights; and (3) the interpretation of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. See Banjul Charter, Arts 30 and 45.
5.
The African Court (hereafter quoted as AfCtHPR) was established through the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights (‘the Protocol’). See Organization of African Unity (OAU), Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights (the ‘Protocol’), 10 June 1998, available at: http://www.achpr.org/files/instruments/court-establishment/achpr_instr_proto_court_eng.pdf. Accessed 26 Jan 2017. The Protocol entered into force on 25 June 2004, and the Court started operating in 2006. See African Court website: http://en.african-court.org/index.php/about-us/court-in-brief. Accessed 26 Jan 2017.
6.
For general discussions about the Commission and the Court see Ouguergouz (2003). See also Muigai (2011).
7.
AfCHPR, 2010 Rules of Procedure of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (hereafter AfCHPR Rules of Procedure), 47th ordinary session held in Banjul, The Gambia, from 12 to 26 May 2010, Chapter 3, ‘Consideration of Communications’, available at: http://www.achpr.org/files/instruments/rules-of-procedure-2010/rules_of_procedure_2010_en.pdf. Accessed 26 Jan 2017.
8.
There is ongoing debate on the binding nature of the Commission’s decisions, which includes varying viewpoints expressed by the Commission itself. See Murray (2015), pp. 50–51.
9.
See Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa, Case Law Analyser: http://caselaw.ihrda.org/body/acmhpr/. Accessed 26 Jan 2017. It should be noted, however, that not all Commission decisions have been consistently published, so this number should be taken more as an indication than an absolute statistic.
10.
Protocol, Art 2. For further reading on the issue of complementarity in the African human rights system, see Ebobrah (2011), pp. 663–688.
11.
Protocol, Art 3.
12.
Protocol, Art 4.
13.
AfCHPR Rules of Procedure, Rule 84 (2) and 118.
14.
Seehttp://en.african-court.org/images/Basic%20Documents/Ratification_and_Deposit_of_the_Declaration_final-jan_2017.pdf. Accessed 26 Jan 2017.
15.
In total, 9 countries have made the Art 34 (6) declaration, but Rwanda withdrew its declaration in 2016. The Court held that a sunset period of 1 year applied, resulting its ability to receive direct complaints from Rwandan citizens and NGOs ending on 1 Mar 2017, see AfCtHPR, Ingabire Victoire Umuhoza v Republic of Rwanda, Application No 003/2014, Ruling on Jurisdiction, 3 June 2016, with corrigendum of 5 Sept 2016.
16.
See AfCtHPR website: http://en.african-court.org/index.php/cases#finalised-cases. Accessed 26 Jan 2017.
17.
See AfCtHPR website: http://en.african-court.org/index.php/cases/2016-10-17-16-19-35#finalised-opinions. Accessed 26 Jan 2017.
18.
Inevitably, given the wider jurisdiction and far longer operation of the Commission, the analysis includes a more detailed discussion of its interpretation of state obligations compared to the Court’s.
19.
Banjul Charter, Art 1.
20.
AfCHPR, Association of Victims of Post Electoral Violence & INTERIGHTS v Cameroon (‘Victims of Post Electoral Violence v Cameroon’), Communication No 272/03, Nov 2009, para 87.
21.
AfCHPR, Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum v Zimbabwe (‘Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum v Zimbabwe’), Communication No 245/02, May 2006, para 142.
22.
Ibid.
23.
AfCHPR, Social and Economic Rights Action Center (SERAC) and Center for Economic and Social Rights v Nigeria (‘SERAC v Nigeria’), Communication No 155/96, Oct 2001, para 44.
24.
Ibid, para 45. With respect to the impact on socio-economic rights, see AfCHPR, Principles and Guidelines on the Implementation of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, available at: http://www.achpr.org/files/instruments/economic-social-cultural/achpr_instr_guide_draft_esc_rights_eng.pdf. Accessed 26 Jan 2017.
25.
Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum v Zimbabwe, supra n 21, para 143. See also Victims of Post Electoral Violence v Cameroon, supra n 21, para 88.
26.
AfCHPR, Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights & INTERIGHTS v Egypt (‘EIPR & INTERIGHTS v Egypt’), Communication No 323/06, Dec 2011, paras 73 and 208; Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum v Zimbabwe, supra n 21, para 159.
27.
AfCHPR, Principles and Guidelines on Human and Peoples’ Rights while Countering Terrorism in Africa, Apr–May 2015, Principles 1(D), 1(E), 1(F), 2(B)(ii).
28.
SERAC v Nigeria, supra n 23, para 46.
29.
Ibid; see also The Commission’s General Comment on Art 14 (1) (d) and (e) of the Protocol on the Rights of Women in Africa, which notes specific examples of what the duties to promote and fulfil mean in the context of women’s rights. AfCHPR, General Comments on Art 14 (1) (d) and (e) of the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa (the Maputo Protocol), see para 23: ‘The obligation to promote in relation to Art 14 (1) (d) and (e) requires states to create the legal, social and economic conditions that enable women to exercise their rights in relation to sexual and reproductive health. This involves engaging in sensitisation activities, community mobilisation, training of healthcare workers, religious, traditional and political leaders on the importance of the right to protection and to be informed on one’s status and that of one’s partner.’
30.
SERAC v Nigeria, supra n 23, paras 46 and 47.
31.
EIPR & INTERIGHTS v Egypt, supra n 26, paras 163, 164, 167; AfCHPR, Sudan Human Rights Organisation & Centre on Housing Rights v Sudan (‘Sudan Human Rights Organisation & Centre on Housing Rights v Sudan’), Communication Nos 279/03-296/05, May 2009, para 148.
32.
AfCtHPR, Beneficiaries of Late Norbert Zongo, Abdoulaye Nikiema alias Ablassé, Ernest Zongo and Blaise IIboudo & the Burkinabe Human and Peoples’ Rights Movement (‘Zongo v Burkina Faso’), Application No 013/2011, judgment on the merits, 28 Mar 2014, para 197.
33.
AfCtHPR, Alex Thomas v United Republic of Tanzania (‘Alex Thomas v Tanzania’), Application 005/2013, judgment on the merits, 20 Nov 2015, para 137.
34.
Ibid, para 135.
35.
AfCtHPR, African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights v Libya (‘African Commission v Libya’), Application No 002/2013, judgment on the merits, 3 June 2016.
36.
AfCtHPR, African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights v Libya (‘African Commission v Libya’), Application No 002/2013, separate Opinion of Judge Fatsah Ouguergouz, para 12.
37.
African Commission v Libya, judgment on the merits, supra n 35.
38.
African Commission v Libya, separate Opinion of Judge Fatsah Ouguerouz, supra n 36, para 11.
39.
African Commission v Libya, judgment on the merits, supra n 35, para 49.
40.
Ibid, paras 49–50.
41.
AfCtHPR, Actions pour la Protection des Droits de L’homme (APDH) v Republic of Cote d’Ivoire (‘APDH v Cote d’Ivoire’), Application No 001/2014, judgment on the merits, 18 Nov 2016.
42.
Ibid, para 61.
43.
Ibid.
44.
AfCHPR, Sir Dawda K. Jawara v The Gambia, Communication Nos 147/95-149/96, May 2000, para 46; cited also in AfCHPR, Noah Kazingachire, John Chitsenga, Elias Chemvura and Batanai Hadzisi v Zimbabwe (‘Kazingachire and Others v Zimbabwe’), Communication No 295/04, May 2012, para 140; EIPR & INTERIGHTS v Egypt, supra n 26, para 272; Victims of Post Electoral Violence v Cameroon, supra note 20, para 87; AfCHPR, Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights and the Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa v Zimbabwe (‘Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights’), Communication No 293/04, May 2008, para 68; AfCHPR, Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa (on behalf of Esmaila Connateh & 13 others) v Angola (‘IHRDA v Angola’), Communication No 292/04, May 2008, paras 82 and 83; see also AfCHPR, Monim Elgak, Osman Hummeida and Amir Suliman (represented by FIDH and OMCT) v Sudan (‘Elgak and Others v Sudan’), Communication No 379/09, Mar 2014, para 140.
45.
Zongo v Burkina Faso, judgment on the merits, supra n 32, para 199.
46.
Alex Thomas v Tanzania, supra n 33.
47.
For instance, in relation to sexual and gender-based violence, the due diligence duty is understood as the duty to ‘prevent, protect against, prosecute, punish, and provide redress for acts of violence against women’, referred to as the ‘5Ps’. See UN Commission on Human Rights, Report of the Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women, Its Causes and Consequences on the Due Diligence Standard as a Tool for the Elimination of Violence against Women, 20 Jan 2006, E/CN.4/2006/61; The European Court of Human Rights (hereafter ECtHR) has used similar language. In ECtHR, Siliadin v France, judgment of 26 July 2005, Reports 2005-VII, a case involving human trafficking, the ECtHR, at para 112 held that ‘in accordance with contemporary norms and trends in this field, the member states’ positive obligations under Art 4 of the Convention must be seen as requiring the penalisation and effective prosecution of any act aimed at maintaining a person in such a situation.’ See also ECtHR, C.N. v the United Kingdom, Application No 4239/08, 13 Nov 2012, para 66 and also the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) in, e.g., the Velásquez Rodríguez Case (‘Velásquez Rodríguez’), judgment of 29 July 1988, Series C 4, para 172.
48.
EIPR & INTERIGHTS v Egypt, supra n 26, para 208; Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum v Zimbabwe, supra note 21, para 159. See also AfCHPR, 341: Resolution on the human rights situation of the abducted Chibok girls and other abducted victims in Nigeria, ACHPR/Res. 341(LVIII) 2016, 20 Apr 2016, par (ii); AfCHPR, 302: Resolution on terrorist acts in the Republic of Kenya, ACHPR/Res.302 (LVI) 2015, 7 May 2015, par 3(vi).
49.
AfCHPR, General Comment No. 3 on the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights: the Right to Life (Article 4) (‘General Comment No. 3’), adopted at the 57th Session, 4–18 Nov 2015, par A(9). It is to be noted that the duty to ‘prevent’ was added by the Commission here as part of the due diligence duty. See also Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum v Zimbabwe, supra n 21, paras 143, 147; EIPR & INTERIGHTS v Egypt, supra n 26, paras 154, 156, 206; SERAC v Nigeria, supra n 23, para 57; AfCHPR, Commission Nationale des Droits de l’Homme et des Libertés v Chad, Communication 74/92, Oct 1995, para 22.
50.
AfCHPR, Committee for the Prevention of Torture in Africa, Zero Draft, General Comment on the Right to Redress for Victims of Torture or Ill-treatment under Article 5 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (‘Zero Draft General Comment on Right to Redress’), 1 Apr 2016, para 63, available at: http://www.achpr.org/files/news/2016/04/d214/zero_draft_general_comment_on_the_right_to_redress_eng.doc. Accessed 26 Jan 2017. A ‘zero draft’ is a document collecting the first thoughts on the topic under consideration, intended to start off more detailed discussions amongst stakeholders on the direction a formal first draft of the instrument being drafted should take.
51.
Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum v Zimbabwe, supra n 21, para 143. See also Sudan Human Rights Organisation & Centre on Housing Rights v Sudan, supra n 31, para 148, citing the IACtHR in Velásquez Rodríguez Case, supra n 47. See also Kazingachire and Others v Zimbabwe, supra n 44, paras 133 and 134.
52.
Velásquez Rodríguez, supra n 47, paras 172 and 174, cited in Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum v Zimbabwe, supra n 21, para 144. In Victims of Post Electoral Violence v Cameroon, supra n 20, para 89, the Commission cites Velásquez Rodríguez, explaining that ‘an illegal act which violates human rights and which is initially not directly imputable to a state (for example because it is the act of a private person or because the person responsible has not been identified) can lead to the international responsibility of state, not because of the act itself, but because of the absence of due diligence to prevent the violation or to respond to it as required by the convention’, Velásquez Rodríguez, supra n 47, paras 172 and 173.
53.
AfCHPR, Gabriel Shumba v Zimbabwe (‘Shumba v Zimbabwe’), Communication No 288/04, May 2012, para 159.
54.
Shumba v Zimbabwe, supra n 54, para 159.
55.
AfCHPR, Kevin Mgwanga Gunme et al. v Cameroon (‘Gunme et al. v Cameroon’), Communication No 266/03, May 2009, para 112.
56.
EIPR & INTERIGHTS v Egypt, supra note 26, paras 156 and 157.
57.
Ibid, para 163.
58.
Ibid, para 203, citing AfCHPR, Resolution on Guidelines and Measures for the Prohibition and Prevention of Torture, Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment in Africa (Robben Island Guidelines) (‘Robben Island Guidelines’), 32th Session, 17–23 Oct 2002, Arts 17 and 19. For the Istanbul Protocol see OHCHR, Istanbul Protocol, Manual on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, HR/P/PT/8/Rev1.
59.
EIPR & INTERIGHTS v Egypt, supra n 26, para 207, citing the UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Convention Against Torture, or CAT), 10 Dec 1984, UNTS 1465: 85, Art 13, and OHCHR, Istanbul Protocol, Manual on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, HR/P/PT/8/Rev1.
60.
EIPR & INTERIGHTS v Egypt, supra note 26, para 207, citing ECtHR, Labita v Italy, judgment of 6 Apr 2000, Reports 2000-IV, para 131; ECtHR, Salman v Turkey, judgment of 27 June 2000, Reports 2000-VII, para 89; ECtHR, Assenov and Others v Bulgaria, judgment of 28 Oct 1998, Reports 1998-VIII, para 105.
61.
EIPR & INTERIGHTS v Egypt, supra n 26, para 208, citing Assenov and Others v Bulgaria, supra n 60.
62.
EIPR & INTERIGHTS v Egypt, supra n 26, para 233. See also AfCHPR, Article 19 v Eritrea, Communication No 275/03, May 2007, para 72.
63.
Sudan Human Rights Organisation & Centre on Housing Rights v Sudan, supra n 31, para 150.
64.
Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum v Zimbabwe, supra n 21, para 158.
65.
Ibid.
66.
Ibid, para 160.
67.
Victims of Post Electoral Violence v Cameroon, supra note 20, para. 115. See also ibid, para 119.
68.
AfCHPR, Mouvement ivoirien des droits humains (MIDH) v Côte d’Ivoire (‘MIDH v Côte d’Ivoire’), Communication No 246/02, July 2008.
69.
Ibid, para 98.
70.
Robben Island Guidelines, supra n 59, Arts 16 (a) and (b).
71.
Zero Draft General Comment on Right to Redress, supra n 50, para 59.
72.
Kazingachire and Others v Zimbabwe, supra n 44.
73.
Ibid, para 134.
74.
Ibid, para 135.
75.
UN General Assembly, Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law, A/RES/60/147, 21 Mar 2006, cited in Kazingachire and Others v Zimbabwe, supra n 44, paras 129 to 131.
76.
Banjul Charter, Art 56 (5).
77.
Sir Dawda K. Jawara v Gambia, supra n 44, para 32; EIPR & INTERIGHTS v Egypt, supra n 26, para 93; AfCHPR, Nixon Nyikadzino (represented by Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum) v Zimbabwe (‘Nyikadzino v Zimbabwe’), Communication 340/07, Mar 2012, para 32; AfCHPR, Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) v Nigeria (‘SERAP v Nigeria’), Communication 338/07, Nov 2010, para 59.
78.
Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum v Zimbabwe, supra n 21, para 50.
79.
Ibid, paras 50, 64.
80.
Ibid, para 215.
81.
Article 19 v Eritrea, supra n 62, para 72.
82.
Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum v Zimbabwe, supra n 21, paras 69–70; see also AfCHPR, Malawi African Association and Others v Mauritania, Communication Nos 54/91, 61/91, 98/93, 164/97 à 196/97 and 210/98, May 2000; AfCHPR, Amnesty International, Comité Loosli Bachelard, Lawyers’ Committee for Human Rights, Association of Members of the Episcopal Conference of East Africa v Sudan (‘Amnesty International and Others v Sudan’), Communication Nos 48/90, 50/91, 52/91, 89/93, Nov 1999.
83.
Article 19 v Eritrea, supra n 62, para 72.
84.
Ibid, para 77. See also Elgak and Others v Sudan, supra n 44, para 61: ‘The Government therefore was not unaware of the situation; rather it wanted a formal legal complaint to be filed. In the case of Amnesty International and Others v Sudan wherein lawyers, human rights activists and members of opposition group were arbitrarily arrested, tortured and killed and where there were reports by the media and UN organs about these violations, the Commission found that “even where no legal action has been brought by the alleged victims at the domestic level, the government has been sufficiently aware to the extent that it can be presumed to know the situation within its own territory as well as the content of its international obligations”.’
85.
The authors of this chapter have had access to several admissibility decisions as a result of their own litigation practice. However, it is not possible to reflect on these in detail in view of the Commission’s strict interpretation of the confidentiality requirement: Banjul Charter, Art 59 and AfCHPR Rules of Procedure, Rule 18 (d), 22, 31 (3), and 110 (3).
86.
Zongo v Burkina Faso, judgment on the merits, supra n 33.
87.
Ibid, para 150.
88.
Ibid.
89.
Ibid, para 151.
90.
Ibid, para 152.
91.
Ibid.
92.
Ibid, para 153.
93.
Ibid, para 154.
94.
Ibid, para 155.
95.
Ibid, para 156.
96.
Ibid.
97.
Ibid, para 187.
98.
AfCtHR, Mohamed Abubakari v United Republic of Tanzania (‘Abubakari v Tanzania’), Application 007/2013, judgment on the merits, 3 June 2016.
99.
Ibid, para 111.
100.
Ibid.
101.
Ibid, para 189.
102.
Ibid, para 192.
103.
Ibid, para 194.
104.
Zongo v Burkina Faso, judgment on the merits, supra n 32, para 70.
105.
Ibid, para 62.
106.
Ibid, para 106.
107.
Ibid.
108.
Ibid, para 97.
109.
EIPR & INTERIGHTS v Egypt, supra n 26, para 275.
110.
Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum v Zimbabwe, supra n 21, holding.
111.
Sudan Human Rights Organisation & Centre on Housing Rights v Sudan, supra n 31, para 229.
112.
Ibid, paras 148, 159, 169.
113.
AfCtHR, Tanganyika Law Society (1) and The Legal and Human Rights Centre (2) v The United Republic of Tanzania and Reverend CR Mtikila v The United Republic of Tanzania (‘Tanganyika Law Society v Tanzania’), Applications No 009/2011 & 011/2011, judgment on the merits, 14 June 2013, para 126 (3); AfCtHR, Lohé Issa Konaté v Burkina Faso (‘Konaté v Burkina Faso’), Application No 004/2013, judgment on the merits, 5 Dec 2014, para 176 (8), making very specific recommendations on what changes needed to be made by the respondent state; APDH v Cote d’Ivoire, judgment on the Merits, supra n 41, para 153 (6).
114.
AfCtHR, Lohé Issa Konaté v Burkina Faso (‘Konaté v Burkina Faso’), Application No 004/2013, order for provisional measures, 4 Oct 2013, paras 23 (i) and 23 (ii).
115.
See, for example, AfCtHR, Ally Rajabu & Others v United Republic of Tanzania (‘Rajabu & Others v Tanzania’), Application No 007/2015, order for provisional measures, 18 Mar 2016, para 22 (a).
116.
AfCtHR, Beneficiaries of Late Norbert Zongo, Abdoulaye Nikiema alias Ablassé, Ernest Zongo and Blaise IIboudo & the Burkinabe Human and Peoples’ Rights Movement (‘Zongo v Burkina Faso’), Application No 013/2011, judgment on reparations, 5 June 2015, para 109. See also para 111 (x).
117.
Ibid, para 108.
118.
Referenced in African Commission v Libya, judgment on the merits, supra n 35, para 37.
119.
Banjul Charter, Art 60.
120.
Banjul Charter, Art 61.
121.
As discussed previously, the Commission relied chiefly on the IACtHR decision in the Velásquez Rodríguez case, supra note 47, to explain how acts by third parties may end up imputing state responsibility, see Sect. 3.1.
122.
Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum v Zimbabwe, supra n 21, para 147.
123.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), 16 Dec 1966, UNTS 999:171.
124.
HRCtee, CCPR General Comment No. 20: Article 7 (Prohibition of Torture, or Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment), 10 Mar 1992.
125.
UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), CEDAW General Recommendation No. 19: Violence against women, 1992, Art 9.
126.
Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum v Zimbabwe, supra n 21, holding.
127.
Sudan Human Rights Organisation & Centre on Housing Rights v Sudan, supra n 31, para 150.
128.
EIPR & INTERIGHTS v Egypt, supra n 26, paras 204, 207, 208.
129.
Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women, General Assembly resolution 48/104 of 20 Dec 1993, UN Doc. A/12175/48/104, 23 Feb 1994, Art 4 (c).
130.
Convention Against Torture, Art 13.
131.
ICCPR, Art 7.
132.
EIPR & INTERIGHTS v Egypt, supra n 26, para 208 (emphasis added).
133.
Protocol, Art 3. For further reading on the mandate of the Court, see Van der Mei (2005), pp. 113–129.
134.
Protocol, Art 7.
135.
Tanganyika Law Society v Tanzania, judgment on the merits, supra n 113, paras 122 and 123.
136.
Zongo v Burkina Faso, judgment on the merits, supra n 32, para 157.
137.
Alex Thomas v Tanzania, supra n 33, para 19.
138.
Ibid, para 88.
139.
Ibid, para 161 (vii). See also paras 81 to 99 and paras 111 to 131.
140.
Ibid, para 161 (vi). See also paras 138 to 154.
141.
Konaté v Burkina Faso, judgment on the merits, supra n 113, paras 170 (3)–(7).
142.
Ibid, para 170 (8).
143.
Abubakari v Tanzania, supra n 98, para 242.
144.
African Commission v Libya, judgment on the merits, supra n 35, paras 81–92.
145.
Ibid, para 11.
146.
Ibid, paras 81–92.
147.
APDH v Cote d’Ivoire, supra n 41, para 20.
148.
African Union, African Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance, 30 Jan 2007, available at: http://www.achpr.org/files/instruments/charter-democracy/aumincom_instr_charter_democracy_2007_eng.pdf. Accessed 26 Jan 2017.
149.
Economic Community of West African States, Protocol on Democracy and Good Governance, A/SP1/12/01, 21 Dec 2001, available at: http://www.internationaldemocracywatch.org/attachments/350_ECOWAS%20Protocol%20on%20Democracy%20and%20Good%20Governance.pdf. Accessed 26 Jan 2017.
150.
APDH v Cote d’Ivoire, supra n 41, paras 47 to 65.
151.
Ibid, paras 57 to 65.
152.
Ibid, para 153(5).
153.
Ibid, para 153(6).
154.
Ibid, para 57 to 65.
155.
Ibid, para 153 (7).
156.
International Court of Justice, Military and Paramilitary Activities (Nicaragua v US), judgment on the merits, 27 June 1986, ICJ Reports 1986, 14, para 29. This view was also referenced by Judge Ouguergouz (on a different topic) in his Separate Opinion in African Commission v Libya, supra n 36, paras 5 and 6.
157.
See, for example, Abubakari v Tanzania, supra n 98, para 32.
158.
AfCtHR, Peter Joseph Chacha v The United Republic of Tanzania, Application 003/2012, ruling, 28 Mar 2014, para 113.

References

Ebobrah ST (2011) Towards a positive application of complementarity in the African human rights system: issues of functions and relations. Eur J Int Law 22:663–688
Article Google Scholar
Muigai G (2011) From the African Court on human and peoples’ rights to the African Court of justice and human rights. In: Ssenyonjo M (ed) The African regional human rights system 30 years after the African charter on human and peoples’ rights. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden, pp 265–282
Google Scholar
Murray R (2015) The implementation of the findings of the African commission on human and peoples’ rights. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Book Google Scholar
Ouguergouz F (2003) The African charter of human and peoples’ rights: a comprehensive Agenda for human dignity and sustainable democracy in Africa. Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague
Book Google Scholar
Van der Mei AP (2005) The new African Court on human and peoples’ rights: towards an effective human rights protection mechanism for Africa? Leiden J Int Law 18:113–129
Article Google Scholar

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Digital Freedom Fund, Berlin, Germany
Yakaré-Oulé (Nani) Jansen Reventlow
International Human Rights and Public Law Solicitor, London, UK
Rosa Curling

Authors

Yakaré-Oulé (Nani) Jansen Reventlow
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Rosa Curling
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rosa Curling .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Faculty of Law, Goethe University, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
Stefan Kadelbach
Faculty of Law, Augsburg University, Augsburg, Germany
Thilo Rensmann
Faculty of Law, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
Eva Rieter

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

(Nani) Jansen Reventlow, YO., Curling, R. (2019). State Obligations in the African System. In: Kadelbach, S., Rensmann, T., Rieter, E. (eds) Judging International Human Rights. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94848-5_12

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94848-5_12
Published: 16 April 2019
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-94847-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-94848-5
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics